What Jesus Would Say to Paul Ryan

What are the ethical underpinnings of society? Are there moral principles which provide a guide for the objectives of public policy? How do the foundational standards of the Judeo-Christian world view, the starting point for any discussion of right and wrong in Western Civilization, guide our steps in meeting societal needs? These are big philosophical questions, and any political debate is conditioned by the moral perspectives of those involved. Since the object of politics is to accomplish good for the polity, what is done depends on what one considers good, and that depends on where one goes to find moral guidance.

Nicholas Kristof has written a column on the health care debate in the form of a parable. It expresses his idea of what Jesus would say to Paul Ryan. It expresses my own views as well. I invite you to read it for yourself and see what you think. Read it on this link.

  

Muslim Scholars Condemn Terrorism

Many in right-wing circles like to ask where are the Muslims who condemn terrorist atrocities committed by extremists in the name of Islam or the outrages of groups like the so-called Islamic State. Well, here they are. A group of 120 eminent Islamic scholars has conducted an extensive study of the Qur'an and the Hadith, and assails the actions of these extremists in the strongest terms. The group includes the Grand Mufti of Egypt and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and All Palestine. The item was first published in English by Lauren Markoe of the Religion News Service and appeared today in the Huffington Post. The scholars make clear that such practices as torture, forced conversions and the killing of innocents are incompatible with the true teachings of Islam. I've reproduced the list below.

1. It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwas without all the necessary learning requirements. Even then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an—or part of a verse—to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas, and one cannot ‘cherry-pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith.
2. It is forbidden in Islam to issue legal rulings about anything without mastery of the Arabic language.
3. It is forbidden in Islam to oversimplify Shari’ah matters and ignore established Islamic sciences.
4. It is permissible in Islam [for scholars] to differ on any matter, except those fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.
5. It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.
6. It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.
7. It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.
8. Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct.
9. It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.
10. It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.
11. It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.
12. The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.
13. It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.
14. It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.
15. It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights.
16. It is forbidden in Islam to enact legal punishments (hudud) without following the correct
procedures that ensure justice and mercy.
17. It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.
18. It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.
19. It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God.
20. It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.
21. Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler and not allowing people to pray.
22. It is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.
23. Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.
24. After the death of the Prophet, Islam does not require anyone to emigrate anywhere.

Pope Francis's Address to Congress

Pope Francis's address to Congress yesterday was unprecedented for a couple of reasons. To start with, he is the first pope to do so. But perhaps more importantly, he spoke to the legislators on terms they seldom hear anymore, the plane of moral necessity. And while liberals had quite a bit more to cheer than conservatives in Francis's speech, there were several cases that struck a positive chord with both, and a couple of instances where conservatives liked what they were hearing more than liberals did. The upshot is that the Pope, though polite and pastoral rather than scolding, did not pull his punches. His approach is not liberal or conservative in U.S. political terms; it is humanitarian in Catholic terms.

The Pope paid his respects to politics as a profession that can accomplish much good, in the proper light. He encouraged a politics whose purpose is "to build the common good, a community that sacrifices particular interests for the common good."

Francis grounded his speech in the examples of the lives of four great Americans: Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton. From Lincoln he invoked the principle of liberty, "a new birth of freedom that requires a love of the common good." The Pontiff counseled "suspicion against any kind of fundamentalism" that draws simplistic good versus evil or righteous versus sinners pictures and that promotes polarization. Stop with the intransigence and get things done for the people, seemed to be his message here.

The Pope brought up Martin Luther King to highlight equal rights and dignity for all. He here devoted most of his message to inveighing against fear and rejection of immigrants, "I say this to you as the son of immigrants, as I know many of you are the descendants of immigrants." He grounded his point in the Golden Rule. He said, "When the stranger appears to us we must not repeat the errors of the past." Francis's frequent references to Dr. King's "dream" made it clear he supported the concept of the American Dream Act. There was not a lot for conservative immigrant-bashers to like in this segment.   

The next passage was based on the example of Dorothy Day, founder of the "Catholic Worker" publication and a lifelong fighter for the poor and oppressed. Francis no  doubt dismayed conservatives when he explicitly brought up the inequitable "distribution of wealth." He called for an economy that is "modern and sustainable," and specified "The common good includes the Earth." He referred to his recent encyclical on environmentalism, saying, "The environment concerns us all, and environmental deterioration is caused by human activities. We can make a difference, I am sure. Now is the time for courageous action. America can make a vital contribution in the years ahead." At this the Democrats enthusiastically rose while the Republicans sat on their hands. 

Finally, Pope Francis turned to the example of Thomas Merton, a 20th century monk famous for his spirituality. Here the Pope advocated sincere dialogue in the spirit of peace and brotherhood to address all human problems. He specifically brought up the arms trade, indirectly chastising America's role in perpetuating wars that shed "innocent blood." He got applause from conservatives by mentioning his commitment to the value of human life "at all stages of development," but they then sat down in confusion when he immediately pivoted to calling for the worldwide end to the death penalty. He spoke of "threats to the family," including the "redefinition of relations," a likely dig at the recent U.S. acceptance of same-sex marriage. But he then broadened the appeal by speaking for "the richness of family life" and calling for the legislators to do all they could for the "vulnerable young" who have "possibilities, but may be trapped in violence, abuse and despair." This call was rousingly supported by all.

The partisan divide was much more muted than in a normal congressional session, or a State of the Union message, but was present nonetheless. Francis skillfully negotiated the shoals while still getting his message out. And while I would say the lion's share of his message supported the liberal approach to solving human problems, he gave everyone a great deal to think about, regardless of their ideological persuasion. 

 

New Pope is An Encouraging Change

As a Catholic I am encouraged by the election of the new pope, Jorge Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina.  As Francis I, the new pope will set a number of helpful precedents, and has many admirable characteristics to bring to the leadership of the world's largest religious organization.

The first non-European pope since the year 741 sends a positive signal that the cardinals wanted to branch out into the world.  Latin America has more Catholics (39-40% of the total) than any other region.  He is also a Jesuit, an order renowned for its education, poverty, and service to the needy.  Jesuits are taught to question everything, and the new pontiff has a degree in and has taught Chemistry in addition to Divinity.  He speaks several languages.  His very selection of the name Francis--the first to do so--recalls the marvelous thirteenth century saint known for his gentle spirituality, love for animals, and care for the poor and sick.

The new pope is known as a prelate who shuns ostentation and the trappings of office.  Rather than live in the archbishop's palace, he stayed in a simple flat, cooked his own food and often rode the bus or bicycled to work.  He spent a great deal of time out and about in the poorer neighborhoods providing relief and advocating for their needs. 

His appearance at St. Peter's was a winning one, eschewing elaborate trappings and vestments and wearing a simple wooden cross, he first asked the assembled throng and the millions watching on television to pray for him.  Then he led the faithful through three simple prayers that every Catholic child could recite with him: the Our Father, Hail Mary and Glory Be.  He came across as understated, warm and compassionate, exuding an easy charm in communicating with the crowd.

There is, unfortunately, small likelihood of doctrinal changes in matters such as the role of women in the church or contraception.  Even so, the installation of a lifelong pastoral minister to the poor rather than a theologian or Vatican bureaucrat should be a plus for the church's ministry and credibility in these times.  He invited his fellow believers to join him on "a journey of friendship, love, trust and faith," and in concluding his remarks promised, "I'll see you again soon."  I wish him well and hope for the best      

What to Do About Contraceptive Coverage

One of the hot topics in the forefront of current public debate concerns the Affordable Health Care Act's requirement that contraception must be covered in health plans.  See the Department of Health and Human Services summary here.  While religious bodies that object to contraception are allowed to exempt their ministry employees from this coverage, the Obama Administration has ruled that the Act requiresthat employees not directly involved in the ministry of the body, such as employees of a church-owned hospital, must be covered.  In order to keep such religious bodies from having to pay premiums for services they do not agree with, health insurers have said they will be happy to include the coverage free.  Insurance companies have not made this offer out of charity; it's because paying for birth control pills is a lot cheaper than paying for prenatal care, delivery and health care for a child.  But this has not satisfied all the objectors.  Let's take a look at the positions.

Opponents see the mandate as an egregious intrusion of government control into the realm of religious free choice.  The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, for example, decries the requirement on its website under the heading "unconscionable to require citizens to buy contraceptives against their will."  They and others see First Amendment ramifications that threaten religious liberty.  The Blunt Amendment (Senator Roy Blunt, R-Missouri) to the Health Care Act, which passed the House but was defeated in the Senate, would have allowed any employer to opt out of the mandate on religious, moral or other personally-held grounds.

Supporters see the mandate as providing needed services used by most women, and as a part of the larger issue of women's freedom to make their own decisions.  A survey by the Public Religion Research Institute covered in the Washington Post shows the majority of Americans support the mandate, with Catholics supporting it more strongly than the population as a whole.  The story points to other findings that 99% of all women and 98% of Catholic women have used artificial contraception at some point in their lives.

Since there are strongly-held principles in apparent conflict here, where should the balance of rights and interests be drawn?  It seems to me that the outline of a reasonable and just solution is clear, and it lies in personal choice.  To deny a widespread pharmaceutical practice used by virtually every American woman due to the objections of religious bodies smacks not of freedom of religion but of establishment of religion prohibited under the same First Amendment.  The statement of the bishops that anyone will be made to "buy contraceptives against their will" is completely wrong.  First, the employer will not be buying them.  Second, no woman is required to ask for or take them.  Only women who ask their doctor for a prescription for birth control pills will get one.  The idea that anyone will be forced to ingest birth control pills against her will is a complete invention and red herring.

In this way, the decision is where it belongs: with the patient.  Make the coverage available to all.  If anyone has a religious or any other objection, she may decline to ask for contraception.  But the decision should not be up to her employer, her preacher, her husband or any other person.  These may give advice, but as with any other medical decision in a free country, the choice is up to the patient.  Picture the shoe on the other foot: Imagine how it would go over if a man had to get permission from his boss in order to buy a condom.  If a boss is a Jehovah's Witness should he have the authority to keep any of his employees from getting a blood transfusion when they are bleeding to death?  If the boss is a Christian Scientist should he or she be able to deny employees antibiotics when they contract an infection because the boss doesn't believe in them, regardless of what the sufferer believes?  Under what principle do we give a person's employer the power to make life and death medical decisions, rather than letting people choose for themselves?  When viewed in this light the issue clarifies itself.  The mandate to cover everyone and let them decide their own medical needs for themselves is better from a public health perspective and more in accord with American concepts of personal liberty, including religious liberty.        

Take the U.S. Religious Knowledge Quiz

Here's an interesting item. Click on the link to take the U.S. Religious Knowledge Quiz from Pew Research. Then compare your performance against the norm. Even though the U.S. is a highly religious country, the average American got only half the answers right.

You can also check and see a number of results, such as the finding that Jews got the highest average score of 65%, followed closely by atheists/agnostics at 64%! You might be surprised who scored low, and which questions were the toughest and easiest.

As a pluralistic society ourselves and one heavily involved in many parts of the world, it would behoove the American populace to have a reasonable understanding of major world faiths. Though this survey shows we are not completely ignorant, it makes clear we have a ways to go.

New York Mosque Controversy

President Obama was, of course, right to say that a Muslim group has a right to build a mosque in New York City two blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center towers. Our First Amendment right to freedom of religion guarantees this. Whether it's two blocks, ten blocks or fifty blocks is irrelevant. If people want to build a church, mosque, synagogue, temple, ashram or any other religious structure anywhere in America that isn't on public land they are allowed to do so.

Most Americans apparently do not agree. A CNN poll this month found that 68% "oppose this plan" while only 29% "support" it. Because of the wording of the question that may include people who may agree the Islamic group has a right to do so but don't think it is a good idea. The President himself said his defense of the right to build the mosque does not necessarily mean he thinks it is a good idea. "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there," he said. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding."

When you have rights and freedoms you have to stand behind them. You cannot withhold them from entire groups because some extremists or fanatics committed an outrage. Consider this event from Middle Eastern history.

On July 15, 1099 forces of the First Crusade broke into Jerusalem. After eliminating the last pockets of armed resistance on the Temple Mount, Crusader knights and soldiers began a massacre of Muslim and Jewish civilians. According to Christian eyewitness Fulk of Chartres, "In this temple almost 10,000 were killed. Indeed if you had been there you would have seen our feet colored to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared." Estimates of the civilian toll throughout the city range from 10 to 30 thousand.

How many Americans do you think would agree that Christians should not be allowed to build churches in Jerusalem after such a massacre? That's right, none would. You either believe in freedom of religion or you do not. It is one of the cardinal principles of American civic values, which is why it is in the very first article of the Bill of Rights. And it has to apply to everyone.

Benedict XVI Needs to Clean House

I've been watching the seemingly ever-expanding Catholic sex abuse scandal with growing amazement. What amazes me is more than the extent of some of these problems, it is how utterly clueless the church leadership appears to be. As a Catholic myself, the whole episode is painful enough. But then to top it all off with a hierarchy that fails to do even the most basic things right is really making me take stock.

I believe that most priests, nuns and monks are sincere and dedicated people. I'm talking about "most" meaning 95% here. But there have always been problem members of the priesthood. As a church member you would hear whispers about them over the years, priests who seemed to get transferred abruptly from place to place. There were various rumored reasons, from church politics to moral turpitude of various types. Then came the sex abuse revelations beginning about ten years ago in the U.S.

The church in its various arms has paid billions in settlements to victims. It looks like they get it that this has been a serious problem. But that seems to be as far as it goes. They do not appear to perceive that a whole culture of secrecy and complacency needs to be ended root and branch. An apology is not enough; there needs to see a major housecleaning. And it needs to come directly from the man at the top, Pope Benedict XVI himself.

Here is what he needs to do:

1. Come clean on his own record. If he made mistakes in judgment or was operating under an outmoded code that valued institutional whitewashing over unpleasant truths truth then that must be admitted.
2. Promulgate a new policy for the church, announce it publicly and publicize it to the skies. The policy must unequivocally state that protection of the people in the church's trust is a mandatory and sacred duty, and that violations of that trust will not be tolerated. Investigations of those charged with criminal abuses of power, particularly against children, will be turned over to the civil authorities. Due process will be followed; the way teachers and police officers' cases are now handled could be good models. But if crimes have been committed it should be the church's position to support the civil authorities in punishing such criminal predators to the full extent of the law. That would not have to include capital punishment, which the church opposes, but long incarcerations at least. The counseling services of the church will still be made available to the offenders. Only it should be in prison, if they want it, not as a means to avoid the penalty for their crimes.
3. Immediately order an investigation to see what other undiscovered skeletons remain hidden. Assign massive personnel and legal resources to it. Set them loose with a free hand to pursue any and all leads.

A pope who was more concerned about proclaiming Christ and following his teachings than defending the institutional church would do these things. The overwhelming majority of clergy, who selflessly serve God and their parishioners, would fully support these steps. The laity are already wondering why they are not being taken.

It is troublingly puzzling that the pope and the top hierarchy do not see that such an approach would save the reputation of the church rather than harming it. Instead we see statements that the press is attacking the church. We see legal opinions that the pope is immune from subpoenas and prosecution. This sort of wagon circling bodes most ill. Rather than clearing the air, it only heightens suspicion.

The church teaches its followers that they are not perfect and that they will stumble. Yet through sincere confession, penance and faith in divine guidance they can be redeemed. It is high time the church followed the advice it gives the faithful. It is time to do the right thing.

I Attend Shabbat

As my wife and I came in the door we were given a cheerful greeting, "Shabbat shalom!" "Shabbat shalom!" I replied. Lisa handed us a prayer/song book and invited me to put on a yarmulke. I picked out a gray one and stuck it on my head as best I could. Yesterday my wife and I went to a Jewish sabbath service for the first time. I found it moving in many ways.

First it might be helpful to tell why we were there. Several years ago when the local Jewish congregation was just getting started the Episcopal Church allowed them to hold their services at their church, St. Paul's. My wife Joan has been attending Episcopal services and participating in their music for nearly a year now. Due to a split in the local Episcopal diocese they are currently without the use of their church building, and the Jews are returning the favor. The Episcopals have been holding their services in the synagogue for several months now. And this week they invited the Episcopals to their sabbath service. I wanted to come along too, to see what it was like.

At this particular service there were probably about 40 Jews and 25 gentiles. A student rabbi, a woman in her mid thirties, had been assigned to conduct the service in this Reformed congregation as part of her training. She had a very nice voice, which helped, because practically the entire service is sung.

You start with the prayer book and you move through it a lot. We started on page 81 and finished past page 300. You don't cover every page, but you're moving quickly through it. "Now we're going to page 92." Then, "We're next moving to page 122." The book is interesting; you open it at the right and the pages proceed from right to left. The text is in Hebrew, but there is also an English translation. The prayers and songs are transliterated. By that I mean they also appear with the Hebrew words phonetically written out in our Roman letters. That makes it possible to sing along with the prayers. It's still not an easy assignment for those uninitiated in the pronunciations, but it was fun to participate and to see how familiar the regulars were with the material.

It's all very ancient. There are echoes of Middle Eastern patterns in the music of the chant, but not to the extent that it sounds extremely alien. Much of the text is about praising God, thanking Him for his many blessings and asking for continued guidance.

At one point, the student rabbi asked if there were those who wanted to remember the deceased in the prayers. She made eye contact in turn with everyone in the congregation, and when she did you could call out any names you wished to be remembered. Several people did. Another time she asked if there were prayer requests for people who were currently ill. This time I mentioned the name of a man who was recently in the hospital for a prostate operation.

The student rabbi, about halfway through, gave her sermon. It was on the theme, "What would you ask or say to God if you were 'face to face' with Him? I think the phrase was "parim el parim." That topic is fertile with many things to consider. She introduced many possibilities. Would it be to ask a question about life? About theology? To seek guidance? To ask pardon for sins or the strength to overcome shortcomings? And what does your choice say about you and your relationship and concept of God? It was a lot to think about, and very much personalized questions of faith. She concluded by saying that the night's reading would show Moses used such face time with God to plead for his mercy for the Jewish people, who had recently dishonored their new covenant by idol worship.

A bit later came the high point of the service, the Torah reading. Two large wooden doors in the wall behind the altar were opened. A large scroll mounted on two rolling pins and covered in an embroidered wrap was taken out. Two people came up to assist the rabbi. She explained what would happen next. Then the Torah (still in its wrap) was paraded around through the congregation. Everyone showed it respect by touching it with their prayer book or kissing it. The student rabbi had said it was only appropriate for Jews to kiss it. I touched it with my prayer book when it came by me.

Then she took it to the altar and read the evening's section. It was all in Hebrew, without vowels, and so the reading was rather halting at times. We listened for and heard the key phrase, "parim el parim" in the reading. Afterward the Torah was returned to its place. Concluding prayers and chants were sung and the service concluded with thanks. The service lasted about an hour and fifteen minutes. Traditional foods of shabbat bread, fruit and cakes were served. Tiny cups of sweet wine were available. Everyone began conversing and socializing. I saw the value in the prayers for the sick when a woman came up to me and asked about the fellow I had mentioned. She also knew him and had not known he was ill.

It was moving to see the veneration shown the Torah. The liturgy was so varied and rather complex, and required such participation it was easy to make the connection between it and the Jewish concentration on education and literacy. There was a strong connection with an ancient past, but interestingly combined with elements of the present, such as a woman rabbi and the invitation of gentiles to share in the service. I am glad we went to this service. There is much beauty in the Jewish shabbat ritual and the joy of the people in observing it.

Merry Christmas

Christmas is great because of the incongruity of it all. Even today, many believers, particularly those who shout the loudest, picture a deity of power, majesty and grandeur. They like the parting of the Red Sea, destruction of enemies and visions of harsh judgment. They like to quote, "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God." The king who commands respect and sets rules, that is the image of God most subscribed to then. Many still do.

Yet God did not come riding a cyclone throwing thunderbolts. He came as a defenseless infant born to nondescript parents in an animal pen. This was God as "the still, small voice." Who would fear a baby, a poor child, a run of the mill craftsman like thousands of others?

No one would, of course. That is the wonder of it, and the design. We are not meant to fear. Indeed, as an adult the first words out of Jesus' mouth to people in trouble were usually, "Be not afraid." The message and the spurs are humility, empathy for our condition and love. Jesus radically defied our expectations at birth and kept on doing so his whole life. God as a child, a servant, an outcast, a criminal. He was like nothing most people would have expected, carrying a message that turned the wisdom of the world upside down.

May you enjoy a wondrous Christmas season this year.

Obama-Warren Flap

Barack Obama has drawn a lot of angry reaction from gays and the Democratic left about his choice of prominent evangelical pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his Inauguration. Warren supported California Proposition 8, which overturned the state's recent court decision legalizing same-sex marriages. It would be a good thing for the critics to get over the anger and realize Obama is doing exactly what he promised he would do during his campaign. I refer to the promise that more than any other won him the presidency, the promise to end the cycle of red and blue gotcha politics that does little but demonize and caricature all who do not agree on every point.

Obama has said many times that he is interested in solving America's problems. There are several issues he and Warren agree on, such as HIV-Aids, aid to education and the poor, the need to encourage parental responsibility and environmental action. Rather than do nothing but fight over the things we disagree about, why not work together to make progress where we do agree, Obama asks.

You can read a short, accurate synopsis on the issues involved here.

For his part, Warren too has drawn fire from some of his supporters for inviting the pro-choice Obama to speak at Warren's Saddleback Church in 2006 and to be questioned there this summer on national television just ahead of a similar session with Obama's opponent, John McCain. Obama and Warren exemplify a welcome trend that would be very good for the country over the next few years.

Instead of vilifying each other, liberals and conservatives ought to identify where they hold common ground and get to work on those matters. The disagreements on other items will still be there; there will be contention about them and someone will win and someone will lose. But that is no reason to completely refuse any cooperation on issues where progress can be made. Those are the kind of political games the American people are very tired of, and against which both the Democratic and Republican tickets ran this year. Barack Obama is not going to run the country in the divisive way President Bush has for the past eight years. That is a good thing. Both Obama and Warren are sending this signal to their most fervent supporters and the nation as a whole for good reason. Their approach should be embraced.

Fanatics Among Us

Today one of my U.S. History students handed me a minister's blog entitled "Response to the Recent Presidential Election." The writer, who signs off as "Dutch Sheets" is a pastor in the Christian Reformed Church, formerly popularly known as the Dutch Refomed Church. The student indicated his general agreement with the pastor's views.

The upshot of the pastor's analysis is that because of the election of Barack Obama, the harsh punishment of a vengeful God is now about to fall upon the United States. In his section entitled "Judgment Will Increase" the minister begins "This is not a fire and brimstone warning from an angry, legalistic preacher." When somebody starts out that way it's a pretty clear indication of what is to come next. He does not disappoint, either.

Here is what the reverend forecasts from the Almighty as retribution for America's choosing Senator Obama: "More economic woes, more violence in an already violent nation, disease and death (satan, who is responsible for these things will have greater inroads to our nation), natural disasters (weather-tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, drought; fires; earthquakes; etc.), terrorism (they will fear us much less now), war, perhaps on our own soil, and judgments relating to the Court."

The list makes me wonder two things. First, what would he have forecast if he had been "an angry, legalistic preacher," and second, are not these predictions characteristic of what has been happening under the born-again President Bush whom this preacher no doubt supported the past two elections, and under whose reign, if this preacher's crystal ball and view of God is right, we should have expected earthly blessings day and night for the past eight years?

What is sobering to consider is that tens of millions of people are subjected to this picture of God, this world view and this view of the legitimacy of Barack Obama as president every week in churches across the country.

Was this the God Jesus spoke of? God as the big hit-man in the sky, indiscriminately laying waste guilty and innocent alike in an endless thirst for vengeance? Is the world view that is godly the one whose candidate supports unnecessary wars and sings and jokes about starting new ones? Is it really that clear and simple?

And finally, if millions of the faithful are weekly being exposed to an ideology that holds the recent election is not about the expressed will of the people but instead about a servant of "satan" whose "background, associations, beliefs and practices..." will set the causes of "God, life and morality...back years, possibly decades," then how long will it be before many of them feel it their celestial duty to eliminate him before these calamities befall us?

I do not mind saying that I frankly find this variety of religion very, very disquieting.

The Evangelical Factor

Yesterday Rev. Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Baptist megachurch in conservative Orange County, California, and author of bestseller "The Purpose Driven Life" hosted candidates Barack Obama and John McCain in successive question and answer sessions. 2,000 of the church's 22,000 members were present in the audience as Warren sought the candidates' views of religious, moral, ethical, and related political topics.

The format was welcoming, neither candidate made a major slip and the audience was good to both participants. As interesting as the exercise was as a debate dry-run, I do not feel it will substantively affect the race. Both contenders accomplished the things they needed to for the audiences they wanted to reach.

Obama wanted to reassure religious moderates that he is not a radical, that he can be trusted. He wanted to reassure Christians that he is a Christian. And he wanted to reassure liberals that he shares their principles. I feel he succeeded on all three counts. Obama made no bones about his own Christian beliefs. He made it clear that his political views come from the standard liberal Christian sources, such as the Sermon on the Mount and such passages as he quoted from Matthew, "Whatsoever you do to the least of these my brothers, you do unto me."

Obama gets credit as a Democrat for even appearing before such a group. White evangelical Protestants support McCain 64-28 according to polls. The audience seemed to give him some credit for that too, applauding several times. It has been quite a while, perhaps since Jimmy Carter in 1976, that the Democrats had a nominee who felt altogether comfortable talking about religion. Where he voiced positions that disagreed with the majority of the denomination's views, as on abortion, he tried to find common ground in reducing the practice.

Obama's positions were often "nuanced." He examined issues from multiple perspectives that did not always come to sharp yes or no conclusions. He often showed evidence of his thinking them through in front of us rather than offering quick, unreflective or pat answers. These are the kinds of responses that appeal to liberals, who see complexities and ambiguities and mistrust "knee-jerk" reactions. They are also the kind that vex conservatives, who crave certainty and decisiveness. Obama's goal was to score points with people of faith among independents and in the Democratic coalition, and avoid throwing red meat to conservative religious fundamentalists in such a way as to incite them and raise their turnout. He largely accomplished these aims.

McCain's objective was to remove any lingering estrangement between himself and the religious right. He wanted to get them fully on board his train, and he largely succeeded too. His views were in line with theirs on the issues, including abortion, stem cells and the federal courts. What is more, they were expressed in the type of short, decisive answers that religious conservatives like to hear, because they indicate the respondent fully accepts the orthodoxy without having to think about it. Especially after the kind of president we now have, that approach scares liberals, but that was not the portion of the public McCain was trying to please. There is no doubt that though the audience was respectful and supportive of Obama, their hearts were with McCain.

But did this session mobilize conservative Protestants to flock to the polls in support of John McCain in November? I doubt it. Though I am sure more are comfortable with him, there is as yet little evidence of the kind of fervor that George W. Bush was able to whip up in 2004. I have no doubt we shall soon see what other avenues the McCain campaign has in mind to improve that over the next 10 weeks.

As a final observation, it was a relief to see such a civil interchange during both sessions. Perhaps if the candidates always behaved as though they were in church this campaign would assume a much more elevated, constructive and intellectually honest tone than it has sometimes assumed up to now.